#1. The windows desktop has supported high DPI displays at least since XP, it's the desktop apps that don't always implement support for it. I anticipate this to continue.
#2. The 320px wide area also scales, so it's 320 "device pixels" but not necessarily 320 "display pixels".
Metro apps have something called Metro scaling, mentioned in the article, which at least alleviates the problem for apps available through the App Store for tablets and the Metro interface. This might actually fix the problem for desktops, too.
"This might actually fix the problem for desktops, too. "
Holy hell, I hope so... it would be about time. We've only been struggling with this 'considerably less complex than rocket science' issue for 20 years or so.
My gut tells me there will still be plenty of ignorant software developers out there screwing this up for desktop users, though.
Concerning only downloadable app store applications where tablets and phones are concerned, most apps scale to the proper ppi. Thankfully the selection of capable software isn't nearly as limited, unlike has been the case for a long time with their desktops.
It's disappointing how desktop/laptop resolution has slowly slid back over the last decade. We're not at the point where Microsoft's _bottom tier_ tablet screen resolution will be superior to entry level desktop/laptops, and equal to the vast majority of them. And then, the high end for desktops/laptops (without being multiple feet in size) will be equal to the middle rung for tablets.
I'm really hoping Apple puts out a "Retina"-style display on their next refresh of the Airs/MBPs, because it doesn't look like Microsoft or any of the PC manufacturers are interested in bumping the resolution of PCs.
The trend to lower resolution is disappointing, but the market demand for low-cost monitors and laptops is what's driven it. A 30" monitor with 2560x1600 resolution is widely available, but it costs over $1000.
Apple has shown demand in the mainstream can be generated for computers and devices with non-cheap (price and quality) components.
The iPad 3 display is so impressive, I still can't believe how Apple charges such an incredibly low price for a device with such a high quality component. If this drives the quality in Windows-based stuff too (such as high-volume trash like a $400 laptop with 15" 1366x768 screen), we all win.
There are 27" 1440p IPS monitors that are creeping towards the $700 mark.
I think there was an Asian 27" 1440p that was only $400 and used the same panel as Dell's 27"er, but had rather common quality issues and limited connectivity.
As Apple has shown, the cost of a higher end screen isn't close to as much as the premium vendors try to charge for it (or, just look at the cost of the replacement parts).
I have no doubt that the manufacturers were simply trying to cut costs (and increase profit margins), because that's what the general trend has been. And as you said, Apple has shown that you can put higher end parts in a system and make a huge profit off of it... it's a bit ironic that Apple is also probably the manufacturer that pushes their systems the least on the specs at the same time.
I don't think you can generalize what Apple pays for certain components to the rest of the market. They have special relationships with a lot of manufacturers, even to the point of paying them to expand their factories in exchange for favorable pricing. You're not going to just walk into Samsung and get the same price for a retina screen as Apple gets (or wherever they get them from these days...maybe LG?). Even if you could, their volumes are so high that the manufacturer simply won't have anything left to sell you.
I wouldn't say they've been going down at all, for a while 13in screens weren't available at much higher than 1280x800/1366x768 resolutions but they've been creeping up with Sony pushing out a 1600x900 screen and with the previous Z series all the way up to full 1920x1080.
The mainstream tends to be with lower resolution but I can see why manufacturers to do this because in my experience many computer users aren't bothered about higher resolutions and in fact complain about them when using any of my systems.
Agreed. Most general computer users are uncomfortable using higher resolutions. In my office, we work with multiple programs frequently (SQLServer, Toad (Oracle), Excel (Pivot tables), Dreamweaver and Web-based survey forms, etc. so we got Dell 30" monitors for each person and still only half of us use 2560 x 1600. Even when its available, some users just can't be bothered. In my case, even with 2560 X 1600 I still needed more window space, so I was able to justify getting a 2nd 30" monitor. Now I rock two 30" monitors at 2560 x 1600 each. Using dual Nvidia video cards, 100 GIG SSD and 8 gigs of ram. I'd love to upgrade to faster ram, but Dell systems tend to be quite limiting.
For a tablet, I don't NEED a super high resolution. For me, a tablet is a tool and a high resolution TV is for entertainment. I do use my Xoom daily for quick email and occasional web-browsing.
Something you're missing I think is that a high dpi display on a tablet finally makes it a VERY useful tool. Text is sharp with almost no need for pinching or zooming. Editing documents with a stylus in portrait mode (zoomed out) is not only doable, but nearly the same as having the printed document in your hand. It's really a big step forward on the creation side of things, and of course the consumption end moves forward with it.
I'd imagine an 11" high dpi tablet could be about perfect aside from the 16:9 form factor shown. I only see the lone 1280x800 12" resolution on the chart representing 16:10, and that makes me sad. I don't want a 16:9, 11" plank.
The nice thing about tablets is you can finally make an easy switch between 16:9 (yuck for *EVERYTHING* besides watching a movie) and 9:16 (hallelujah!)
Problem with larger screen apps and mouse. Is more mouse movement. Too big is uncomfortable at full screen. And there is a time for using windows. Microsoft wants to phase windows into all full-screen. I think they'll be a lot of backlash from this though.
"Problem with larger screen apps and mouse. Is more mouse movement. Too big is uncomfortable at full screen."
Your mouse sensitivity is too low. Turn it up and get a high res screen. The time you waste with moving the mouse, is more than made up for in NOT scrolling to read every webpage you visit.
Agreed. I up the pointer speed on all my client's boxes. I also select the box to "Automatically move pointer to the default button in a dialog box". It takes them awhile to get used to it, but they can always back it down if it's too sensitive for them. The less you move the mouse the less fatigue you have. It's all about ergonomics.
I'm using a 17" LCD with 1280x720 as native resolution. And no, Metro apps won't start, including IE10. I hope Windows 8 comes with a free monitor, because I'm not going to replace mine. 48 pixels and I'm a pariah...
If it makes you feel better, I get Windows 8 for free and my hardware is all compatible, but I'm still not sure I'll be upgrading, I've used it since the first dev release and I still find it slows down multitasking tremendously.
Agreed, I'm not upgrading based on my experience with the Consumer Preview, and the usability issues and my place of work has just announced the same. Seriously MS, get a grip. Apple's tablet with its superb screen resolution is on the market TODAY. Your product is still on the drawing board, but won't even match the resolution? It's like they plan to fail....I forsee Windows 8 being a bit of a disaster based on what people expect from Windows (err the Windowed interface) having been substantially messed with.
High-end screens have always been hugely important to me. I, too, am hoping that we will see super hi-res hi-pixel density in the upcoming Ivy Bridge refreshes from Apple, at least as an option. Almost equally as important to me is finally seeing at least SOME MacBook Pro's and/or Air's adopt IPS technology into their respective panels, something that is found in every iPad and even the iPhone since the iPhone 4 on the smaller-size end, as well as Apple's iMac's and Cinema Displays (stand-alone monitors) at 24", 27" and 30". HP just came out with a $700 2560x1440 IPS monitor with 10-bit graphics, which was a welcome sight. So what if it doesn't have HDMI ports. Just get a DisplayPort-to-HDMI adapter and all will be well, availability of quality drivers permitting. HP also brought back IPS in its highest-end EliteBooks a couple of years ago. They call it their "DreamColor" display, and if I hadn't switched to Apple after Lenovo dropped 17" ThinkPad's altogether in 2010, I'd probably own one of those EliteBook's.
As far as my entertainment goes, I get it on my 27" Cinema Display (1440p; 16:9) which sits right in front of me and on my 1080p projector on a 120" screen but from a 12' distance. Both solutions are nothing short of spectacular and unless my circumstances change dramatically, I have no plans to get another HDTV, at least until 4K resolution is in the "affordable" range. My projector is so sharp that it is even comfortable to work on for brief periods of time, such as writing up this quick reply. ;-)
Windows 8 runs well in a virtual machine on my MBP, but the jury is still out as far as using it over Windows 7 is concerned.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
29 Comments
Back to Article
Spivonious - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
#1. The windows desktop has supported high DPI displays at least since XP, it's the desktop apps that don't always implement support for it. I anticipate this to continue.#2. The 320px wide area also scales, so it's 320 "device pixels" but not necessarily 320 "display pixels".
michael2k - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
Metro apps have something called Metro scaling, mentioned in the article, which at least alleviates the problem for apps available through the App Store for tablets and the Metro interface. This might actually fix the problem for desktops, too.Concillian - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
"This might actually fix the problem for desktops, too. "Holy hell, I hope so... it would be about time. We've only been struggling with this 'considerably less complex than rocket science' issue for 20 years or so.
My gut tells me there will still be plenty of ignorant software developers out there screwing this up for desktop users, though.
Chudilo - Friday, March 23, 2012 - link
Alternatively, you'd have to go the Apple route and not allow the software to run on your platform until they do things properly.choirbass - Sunday, March 25, 2012 - link
Concerning only downloadable app store applications where tablets and phones are concerned, most apps scale to the proper ppi. Thankfully the selection of capable software isn't nearly as limited, unlike has been the case for a long time with their desktops.KitsuneKnight - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
It's disappointing how desktop/laptop resolution has slowly slid back over the last decade. We're not at the point where Microsoft's _bottom tier_ tablet screen resolution will be superior to entry level desktop/laptops, and equal to the vast majority of them. And then, the high end for desktops/laptops (without being multiple feet in size) will be equal to the middle rung for tablets.I'm really hoping Apple puts out a "Retina"-style display on their next refresh of the Airs/MBPs, because it doesn't look like Microsoft or any of the PC manufacturers are interested in bumping the resolution of PCs.
Taft12 - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
The trend to lower resolution is disappointing, but the market demand for low-cost monitors and laptops is what's driven it. A 30" monitor with 2560x1600 resolution is widely available, but it costs over $1000.Apple has shown demand in the mainstream can be generated for computers and devices with non-cheap (price and quality) components.
The iPad 3 display is so impressive, I still can't believe how Apple charges such an incredibly low price for a device with such a high quality component. If this drives the quality in Windows-based stuff too (such as high-volume trash like a $400 laptop with 15" 1366x768 screen), we all win.
ImSpartacus - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
There are 27" 1440p IPS monitors that are creeping towards the $700 mark.I think there was an Asian 27" 1440p that was only $400 and used the same panel as Dell's 27"er, but had rather common quality issues and limited connectivity.
KitsuneKnight - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
As Apple has shown, the cost of a higher end screen isn't close to as much as the premium vendors try to charge for it (or, just look at the cost of the replacement parts).I have no doubt that the manufacturers were simply trying to cut costs (and increase profit margins), because that's what the general trend has been. And as you said, Apple has shown that you can put higher end parts in a system and make a huge profit off of it... it's a bit ironic that Apple is also probably the manufacturer that pushes their systems the least on the specs at the same time.
Metaluna - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
I don't think you can generalize what Apple pays for certain components to the rest of the market. They have special relationships with a lot of manufacturers, even to the point of paying them to expand their factories in exchange for favorable pricing. You're not going to just walk into Samsung and get the same price for a retina screen as Apple gets (or wherever they get them from these days...maybe LG?). Even if you could, their volumes are so high that the manufacturer simply won't have anything left to sell you.Hector2 - Friday, March 23, 2012 - link
Uh, you do realize that the iPad screen size is SMALLER than a laptop and standard LCD monitors ? OF COURSE ITS CHEAPER !!Johnmcl7 - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
I wouldn't say they've been going down at all, for a while 13in screens weren't available at much higher than 1280x800/1366x768 resolutions but they've been creeping up with Sony pushing out a 1600x900 screen and with the previous Z series all the way up to full 1920x1080.The mainstream tends to be with lower resolution but I can see why manufacturers to do this because in my experience many computer users aren't bothered about higher resolutions and in fact complain about them when using any of my systems.
John
GotThumbs - Friday, March 23, 2012 - link
Agreed. Most general computer users are uncomfortable using higher resolutions. In my office, we work with multiple programs frequently (SQLServer, Toad (Oracle), Excel (Pivot tables), Dreamweaver and Web-based survey forms, etc. so we got Dell 30" monitors for each person and still only half of us use 2560 x 1600. Even when its available, some users just can't be bothered. In my case, even with 2560 X 1600 I still needed more window space, so I was able to justify getting a 2nd 30" monitor. Now I rock two 30" monitors at 2560 x 1600 each. Using dual Nvidia video cards, 100 GIG SSD and 8 gigs of ram. I'd love to upgrade to faster ram, but Dell systems tend to be quite limiting.For a tablet, I don't NEED a super high resolution. For me, a tablet is a tool and a high resolution TV is for entertainment. I do use my Xoom daily for quick email and occasional web-browsing.
Super56K - Friday, March 23, 2012 - link
Something you're missing I think is that a high dpi display on a tablet finally makes it a VERY useful tool. Text is sharp with almost no need for pinching or zooming. Editing documents with a stylus in portrait mode (zoomed out) is not only doable, but nearly the same as having the printed document in your hand. It's really a big step forward on the creation side of things, and of course the consumption end moves forward with it.I'd imagine an 11" high dpi tablet could be about perfect aside from the 16:9 form factor shown. I only see the lone 1280x800 12" resolution on the chart representing 16:10, and that makes me sad. I don't want a 16:9, 11" plank.
KoolAidMan1 - Saturday, March 24, 2012 - link
You miss the point, higher PPI means not need to anti-aliasing text, and that fine print is easily legible without needing to zoom in.It is clearer than the best print at this point, it is pretty crazy. High PPI displays are a benefit everywhere.
Hrel - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
My desktop is plugged into a 37" 1080p screen. What about that huh Microsoft? 42", 47", 114" for when I finally get a projector.(slow people, this comment is sarcasm, not a serious complaint. Fuck touchscreens)
ivan256 - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
Looks like bad news for people who hate 16:9.We're finally to the point where PCs are more for content consumption than for getting work done apparently.
Taft12 - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
The nice thing about tablets is you can finally make an easy switch between 16:9 (yuck for *EVERYTHING* besides watching a movie) and 9:16 (hallelujah!)Galvin - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
Problem with larger screen apps and mouse. Is more mouse movement. Too big is uncomfortable at full screen. And there is a time for using windows. Microsoft wants to phase windows into all full-screen. I think they'll be a lot of backlash from this though.retrospooty - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
"Problem with larger screen apps and mouse. Is more mouse movement. Too big is uncomfortable at full screen."Your mouse sensitivity is too low. Turn it up and get a high res screen. The time you waste with moving the mouse, is more than made up for in NOT scrolling to read every webpage you visit.
bigboxes - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
Agreed. I up the pointer speed on all my client's boxes. I also select the box to "Automatically move pointer to the default button in a dialog box". It takes them awhile to get used to it, but they can always back it down if it's too sensitive for them. The less you move the mouse the less fatigue you have. It's all about ergonomics.Ethaniel - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link
I'm using a 17" LCD with 1280x720 as native resolution. And no, Metro apps won't start, including IE10. I hope Windows 8 comes with a free monitor, because I'm not going to replace mine. 48 pixels and I'm a pariah...seapeople - Saturday, March 24, 2012 - link
Not sure if you're joking, but you realize that a new and better monitor would cost less than Windows 8, right?tipoo - Saturday, March 24, 2012 - link
If it makes you feel better, I get Windows 8 for free and my hardware is all compatible, but I'm still not sure I'll be upgrading, I've used it since the first dev release and I still find it slows down multitasking tremendously.robinthakur - Monday, April 2, 2012 - link
Agreed, I'm not upgrading based on my experience with the Consumer Preview, and the usability issues and my place of work has just announced the same. Seriously MS, get a grip. Apple's tablet with its superb screen resolution is on the market TODAY. Your product is still on the drawing board, but won't even match the resolution? It's like they plan to fail....I forsee Windows 8 being a bit of a disaster based on what people expect from Windows (err the Windowed interface) having been substantially messed with.nofumble62 - Friday, March 23, 2012 - link
Stop giving me 1080 resolution, LCD manufacturers. It is about time, give us something better than that.piroroadkill - Friday, March 23, 2012 - link
The thing is, they never used to. It was always 1920x1200 on the high end, then the 1080p crazy started, hard.Now everyone offers 16:9, which is a worthless ratio on a smaller screen:- I don't spend all my time watching films..
Hector2 - Friday, March 23, 2012 - link
I'm waiting for Apple to say they patented the number of pixels per inch for their latest iPad. LOLMadMacMan - Sunday, March 25, 2012 - link
High-end screens have always been hugely important to me. I, too, am hoping that we will see super hi-res hi-pixel density in the upcoming Ivy Bridge refreshes from Apple, at least as an option. Almost equally as important to me is finally seeing at least SOME MacBook Pro's and/or Air's adopt IPS technology into their respective panels, something that is found in every iPad and even the iPhone since the iPhone 4 on the smaller-size end, as well as Apple's iMac's and Cinema Displays (stand-alone monitors) at 24", 27" and 30". HP just came out with a $700 2560x1440 IPS monitor with 10-bit graphics, which was a welcome sight. So what if it doesn't have HDMI ports. Just get a DisplayPort-to-HDMI adapter and all will be well, availability of quality drivers permitting. HP also brought back IPS in its highest-end EliteBooks a couple of years ago. They call it their "DreamColor" display, and if I hadn't switched to Apple after Lenovo dropped 17" ThinkPad's altogether in 2010, I'd probably own one of those EliteBook's.As far as my entertainment goes, I get it on my 27" Cinema Display (1440p; 16:9) which sits right in front of me and on my 1080p projector on a 120" screen but from a 12' distance. Both solutions are nothing short of spectacular and unless my circumstances change dramatically, I have no plans to get another HDTV, at least until 4K resolution is in the "affordable" range. My projector is so sharp that it is even comfortable to work on for brief periods of time, such as writing up this quick reply. ;-)
Windows 8 runs well in a virtual machine on my MBP, but the jury is still out as far as using it over Windows 7 is concerned.